Jimmy Carter for Dean

[Inmate Trump]

Have you all heard this?  It's on Drudge, and I'm sure a few other news sites.

It appears that the former president is going to do everything BUT endorse Howard Dean.  How much do you think that will boost Dean, especially in the South?

[jravnsbo]

A little but not enough.  Why no endorsement is the bigger question?

Plus embracing the memories of the Carter administration may not be a plus.

Have you all heard this?  It's on Drudge, and I'm sure a few other news sites.

It appears that the former president is going to do everything BUT endorse Howard Dean.  How much do you think that will boost Dean, especially in the South?

[Inmate Trump]

A little but not enough.  Why no endorsement is the bigger question?

Plus embracing the memories of the Carter administration may not be a plus.

Not a plus for a general election.  But you have to remember, Democrats *love* Jimmy Carter; they (in general) have a really hard time admitting that he was a bad president, even worse than Clinton.

[NHPolitico]

A little but not enough.  Why no endorsement is the bigger question?

Plus embracing the memories of the Carter administration may not be a plus.

Have you all heard this?  It's on Drudge, and I'm sure a few other news sites.

It appears that the former president is going to do everything BUT endorse Howard Dean.  How much do you think that will boost Dean, especially in the South?

Carter won Iowa. Gore won Iowa (both in the primary and the general election).  Carter isn't endorsing Dean, but he's showing that he feels Dean is a legitimate presidential candidate.  Also, Gephardt's supporters are long-time caucus-goers. Dean's are mostly new to the process. I think this could help Dean with the long-timers.

[NHPolitico]

 How much do you think that will boost Dean, especially in the South?

That's an interesting question. Gore was quite popular with blacks. Carter was, too.  I think both associations help Dean with blacks. That means it helps Dean in Southern primaries.  Dean has a very smooth operation in Georgia already.  He sees it as a state he can win from a Clark or Edwards, if it comes to that.  

[NHPolitico]

But you have to remember, Democrats *love* Jimmy Carter; they (in general) have a really hard time admitting that he was a bad president, even worse than Clinton.

That is true. Carter isn't remembered badly. First, his work with Habitat for Humanity has helped his image among Democrats. Second, they think that his policies were right, but that America wasn't ready for him. Carter was just ahead of his time, you see.

[jravnsbo]

Carter is great ex-President, but terrible President.  Gas lines, Iran hostages, etc

NHPolitico--I have largely ignored these atlas elections but said I would help them out now.  We will need you to come vote int eh general election if you would.  Thanks.  

[agcatter]

NHPolitico,
Just to change the subject for a moment.  I was wondering what the television advertising was like up therein NH right now.  Who is spending the most $ on advertising?  Give me your educated guess as to how the candidates will finish in the primary?  Maybe go out on the limb on order of finish and percentages.

[jravnsbo]

ag- I know the question wasn't to me, but for one small point, i heard Clark is spendig 5 million in NH these last 2 weeks.

also we need you in the coming weeks to support Supersoulty int he Atlas elections if you could.  thanks.

[MAS117]

I see this as a good step for Dean even though no offical endorsement will come from the ex President.

[agcatter]

Five million in a small state like NH?  Wow.  That's a ton - sounds like Clark is pulling out all the stops.

[jravnsbo]

He is.  HE is solidly in second and if he can hold it he gets a good bump, but another story is developing there too, Lieberman is only down 1% to Kerry for 3rd.  Lieberman could sneak up to 3rd esp if Kerry does poorly in IA.

Five million in a small state like NH?  Wow.  That's a ton - sounds like Clark is pulling out all the stops.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Kerry the first to pull out?

[NHPolitico]

NHPolitico,
Just to change the subject for a moment.  I was wondering what the television advertising was like up therein NH right now.  Who is spending the most $ on advertising?  Give me your educated guess as to how the candidates will finish in the primary?  Maybe go out on the limb on order of finish and percentages.

Clark is spending the most, then Kerry and Lieberman. Dean has the lead and is spending more in Iowa. He'll really go on air after Iowa. Dean does still have ads up, but not as much as he was when he was in second place in Iowa. I agree with the level of ads all the candidates are running.

[NHPolitico]

Five million in a small state like NH?  Wow.  That's a ton - sounds like Clark is pulling out all the stops.

He's not running in Iowa and so he's not running ads there (I'd think). He's got a chance (remote) to knock off Dean in an upset here. He's doing the right thing.

[opebo]

Carter is not any better as an ex-President than he was as a President.  Sure Democrats like him but I think most other Americans view him as a left-wing dupe of foreign dictators.  His performances trashing America on his visits to despotic regimes abroad has been shameful.  I think any quasi-endorsement by Carter would hurt Dean in the general election, particularly in the South.  They feel betrayed by one of their own who pretended to be a moderate and turned out to be a left-wing defeatist.

[© tweed]

A little but not enough.  Why no endorsement is the bigger question?

Plus embracing the memories of the Carter administration may not be a plus.

Not a plus for a general election.  But you have to remember, Democrats *love* Jimmy Carter; they (in general) have a really hard time admitting that he was a bad president, even worse than Clinton.

Clinton was not a BAD president, so to say Carter is worse than him is an obvious statement.  But in the long run, Reagan did more damage than carter.

[Inmate Trump]

Clinton was not a BAD president, so to say Carter is worse than him is an obvious statement.  But in the long run, Reagan did more damage than carter.

Oh please.  You don't honestly believe that, do you?

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Carter is not any better as an ex-President than he was as a President.  Sure Democrats like him but I think most other Americans view him as a left-wing dupe of foreign dictators.  His performances trashing America on his visits to despotic regimes abroad has been shameful.  I think any quasi-endorsement by Carter would hurt Dean in the general election, particularly in the South.  They feel betrayed by one of their own who pretended to be a moderate and turned out to be a left-wing defeatist.

I strongly disagree that he's no better as an ex-president. He built homes for the poor. He monitored elections in questionable countries, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. He's a best selling author. He has founded the Carter Center for Peace. The Problems he had as President were inherited from the Previous Administration, and some things, like the price of gas, is out of every president's control, OPEC, not The Oval Office, determines those prices.

[jravnsbo]

PLease! I won't even respond as I know I'd fly off the handle when you say Regan was worse than Carter.  

A little but not enough.  Why no endorsement is the bigger question?

Plus embracing the memories of the Carter administration may not be a plus.

Not a plus for a general election.  But you have to remember, Democrats *love* Jimmy Carter; they (in general) have a really hard time admitting that he was a bad president, even worse than Clinton.

Clinton was not a BAD president, so to say Carter is worse than him is an obvious statement.  But in the long run, Reagan did more damage than carter.

[jravnsbo]

I agree that Carter is one of the best if not the best ex-president we have had.  

Taft and Polk would be in consideration ina  different area.  Taft as he went on to serve as CJ of the US SCT, and wasn't it Polk that came back as a Senator?  (feel free to correct that one if wrong)

[© tweed]

Carter had only four years to economically screw the country up, but Reagan had 8 and used all of them well.

[jravnsbo]

What?  The economy boomed during the 80s and came out of the recession int he Carter days.

Carter had only four years to economically screw the country up, but Reagan had 8 and used all of them well.

[© tweed]

What?  The economy boomed during the 80s and came out of the recession int he Carter days.

Carter had only four years to economically screw the country up, but Reagan had 8 and used all of them well.

Reagan is responsibe for approx. $2.2T of the national debt.

[jravnsbo]

well first off he alone is not responsbile for it.  Dems still had control of the house (where appropiriations bill start) and 2 years the senate.

Next, the money was spent on defense to end communism in Russia, so pennies ont eh dollars then.

Next our military was in shambles afterCarter and needed massive repair.

Next, Reagan also had to jumpstart the economy with tax cuts as he did from the Carter recessions.

Yes he had to spend money but to fix the nation for the better in the long run.

What?  The economy boomed during the 80s and came out of the recession int he Carter days.

Carter had only four years to economically screw the country up, but Reagan had 8 and used all of them well.

Reagan is responsibe for approx. $2.2T of the national debt.